There is a point in which we get far too caught up in the potential for games and lose sight of the situation on the ground, which is this:
The Syrian government has used chemicals weapons on civilians.
The Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons on government forces and civilians.
The Syrian government is backed militarily and politically by Russia and China. This has occurred prior to the conflict and from its very beginning.
The Syrian rebels are backed militarily by NATO countries, with limited political support. This began shortly after it became apparent that Russia would not cease arming Assad's forces.
100,000 Syrians have died, including many children and other civilians.
There is no end of the conflict in sight.
Diplomatic solutions
were tried and failed. Russia and China, theoretical proponents of a diplomatic solution, haven't crafted any resolutions to that effect so no NATO country has actually even contemplated exercising a veto. In fact, Russia and China have done nothing to end the conflict aside from obstructing the UN and simultaneously continuing to arm Assad to murder Syrian civilians and rebel forces equally.
UN military involvement, backed by NATO countries, has been obstructed at the level of the Security Council.
Syria is located in one of the most unstable geopolitical zones on Earth; any spillage of chemical weapons attacks to neighboring states is quite capable of triggering catastrophic war. This is not likely at the present moment, and remains unlikely so long as the deterrence for the use of chemical weapons remains high.
This is not a proxy war. The US gains nothing of importance from a rebel victory in Syria and in fact such a victory would be more geopolitically destabilizing. Similarly, the US gains nothing by ousting Assad. Russia has a vested interest in seeing the Assad regime preserved, as does China. So what is the incentive for NATO intervention?
Pull out a map. Note the location of Damascus. Look at the casualty figures. Then look at the dates of the four documented chemical weapons attacks that have occurred in Syria. And then look at their locations.
This is a catalytic conflict, unless it is ramped back to the state of limited civil war that it began in. That is why you see NATO countries reluctantly gearing up to act - and for all the bluster from the US and France, it IS reluctant. NATO is not enthusiastic about this response, but they are even less enthusiastic about open war that could spill across the entire Middle East in short order. Nobody wants to find out the consequences of a chemical munition landing in Jerusalem. NATO's sole objective is to put the genie back in the bottle and make sure there is no further use of chemical weapons. That's why no forces aside from missile strikes and air power are being committed; that's why the nations without missile capability are not committing their militaries to action.
But that is in and of itself a strawman. The broken structure of the Security Council is because of the power of the veto, something which France, the US and UK don't want to give up. Arguing that the UN is useless while simultaneously hamstringing them is rather disingenuous at best, and outright Machiavellian at worst. Especially when, as I pointed out earlier, I'm suspicious about whether the resolution that was vetoed was one deliberately chosen to be unpalatable to the Russians and Chinese.
NATO vs the SC veto is a circular argument, as you're demonstrating. NATO would not exist without the SC veto; no country with a veto can afford to give it up unless all the others do; countries which are not a part of NATO can't afford to give up the veto; NATO countries can't give up their vetoes if the non-NATO countries retain theirs; etc
Note that neither the Russians nor the Chinese have proposed any actionable measures - diplomatic or military - to halt the killing of civilians and the use of chemical weapons. All they have done is obstruct. You're talking like both nations are acting in good faith, which clearly they are not. Although the US/Britain/France group may have proposed military solutions which Russia and China did not like, at least they have proposed
something. The Russians and Chinese appear complacent to allow the conflict to continue unfettered with their preference being Assad win by any military means available to him. That is not a reasonable or defensible position, though the reasons why both countries are happy to pursue that policy are abundantly clear. I just can't wrap my head around your lack of condemnation of them for it.
It's not that the NATO countries have outright rejected diplomacy led by the UN - it's that no leadership is being shown by the countries who openly oppose any military action on the diplomatic front. If you haven't been paying attention, there have been numerous attempts at non-UN SC-led diplomacy since 2011. They have managed nothing. In fact, the diplomatic line in the sand over chemical weapons use has now been crossed four times. It's time to do something about that. If Russia and China want a diplomatic solution, the ball is in tjheir court (as it has been in the Russians court since 2011; they hold considerable sway over the Syrian government).
It is worth pointing out that a catalytic war in the Middle East doesn't actually hurt the Russians or Chinese; in many ways it can be geopolitically beneficial to both nations. They have no vested interest in seeing this conflict end; whether its the consequences, the chemical weapons use, or the civilian deaths, neither of those governments cares. What they do care about is if Assad loses and by some miracle a non-Islamofascist pro-Western stable government ends up running Syria - that (unlikely though it is) would harm both of them.
If you're not Russia and China right now, the most dangerous course of action at the moment is no action at all - the status quo has a high probability of catastrophic consequences. Even if the conflict does not spread, the loss of civilian life and the use of chemical weapons must be denounced and demonstrated as unacceptable by some means with weight.
The part that concerns me is not what happens this week or next week, but next year and the year after.
The thing is, whilst this may indeed not be about picking sides, if only the Chemical Weapons ability is hit, and Assad still manages to push out the rebels, the West will be left to deal with a country whose leadership has been subject to an attack on their own soil by the Coalition. Such a Government would be almost impossible to establish Diplomatic links with in the future, especially with Russia and Iran backing it up.
If those strikes happen, then a side has been chosen intentionally or not, because the Coalition simply cannot afford to leave Assad in power after attacking his forces.
This is untrue. Many Western governments have poor diplomatic ties to many countries. The West can strike Assad's forces - and the rebels - with no concern as to diplomatic consequences. Post-war Syria is of little consequence to the West. It's importance lies in the current state of war and its geographical position.
There is nothing stopping NATO from hitting Assad's and the rebel forces, yet leaving their leadership intact. This is about consequences for behaviour, not ending the conflict.
